Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Most Americans would agree that freedom of conscience ranks among our most cherished liberties. As such, the state should protect this particular right by almost any means necessary and reasonable (especially for citizens).

In California, an initiative has been undertaken to get a ballot before voters to determine the propriety of Christmas music in California public schools. Within the measure is a clause that would require schools to notify parents 21 days before the specified tunes would be played or performed so that students can opt out of being exposed to such material.

Those having embraced a rigorous interpretation regarding the separation of church and state will applaud the measure as a enlightened compromise as these voices will be among the first to point out that, in these swinging days of free thought, not everyone embraces the Christianity espoused by these Yuletide harmonies. One must ask then would the exponents of the unsullied conscience be as outspoken in defense of those wanting to be excused from exposure to more progressivist causes and material.

Absolutarian relativists claim that, in order to ensure the scholastic neutrality of the classroom, not even a whiff of religious material can be permitted to waft across young impressionable minds. That might be what is claimed in theory, but the reality falls far short as an exclusionary objectivity is applied only to Christianity with other worldviews and religions actually imposed upon students.

Any rational person will admit that, in order to have the most comprehensive understanding of the world possible, one must have an understanding of religion as one of history’s most influential motivating forces. However, there is a point at which education becomes advocacy.

For example, it has already been stated that even if authorized, traditional Christmas music will be categorized as quasi-subversive in nature as one has to admit exposure to these lyrics could potentially alter the very spiritual identity of those exposed to them. However, such caution is not exercised in regards to Islam.

According to a WorldNetDaily.com story titled “Islamic studies required in California district” posted 1/2/02, students there are required to learn about this prominent world religion. However, students were not going to be doing this via the traditional social studies methodology of reading a standard text detached in tone about the tenets of this system of belief and its impact upon the world in terms of history, geography, and culture. Rather, the curriculum required students to live out Islam. This was to be achieved by having students memorize Koranic verses, praying in the name of Allah, adopting an Islamic name, and staging a pretend jihad.

Wonder if the name Nadal Malik Hassan mmmmmm, mmmmm, mmmmmm is available with students able to pretend to shoot up an army base. When one takes all this into consideration, the above lesson plan sort of looses its grade school charm, doesn’t it?

Mass death brings up yet another disturbing point. According to Islamic teaching, all one has to do to become a Muslim is to say with conviction that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.

Parents need to seriously investigate if this is one of the Islamic phrases being chanted in the public schools where an accommodationist approach to the study of Islam has been adopted, and if it has, parents need to be quite insistent as to having their children removed from the program even if it means withdrawing from the particular school all together. For you see, to a sizeable percentage of Muslims around the world, one is justified in murdering someone that apostasizes or leaves the faith.

To many, this may seem like theological nitpicking on the scale of debating how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. However, should we, with little resistance, be giving these fanatics another reason with a straight face to kill Americans?

Numerous Muslims will insist that their faith does not condone the slaughter of innocent people. They just don't tell you that their definition of innocent is much narrower than ours. Never has an insincerely or regretfully sung Christmas Carol resulted in anyone’s death.

The hypertolerant will sneer that this extremism of either Christians wanting everyone to sing Christmas tunes or Islamists demanding students recite the Koran and even miss recess as a simulated form of Ramadan fasting are shortcomings inherent to the traditional religious mindset irrespective of the belief system in question. However, the agnostic reprobate can’t resist to impose their belief on everyone else either.

To both the pagan who sees the natural world as God and the materialist who believes in nothing beyond the natural world, there is nothing as important as the reproductive pleasure cravings we all posses and know as the sex drive. Since it is claimed that there is no absolute truth in these particular worldviews, the "is" automatically becomes the "ought" and however the libidinous impulse manifests itself is acceptable upon the particular social context. Therefore, those wanting a world with the fewest taboos possible have a vested interest in convincing the greatest number possible to this perspective.

And unlike the Christian and even the Muslim for all that matter, this persuasion is not so much for the benefit of the soul of the person whose mind the adherents of these respective outlooks are out to change. Rather those trapped in lives of carnal destitution are so wracked by personal guilt that they cannot bear the thought of others disapproving of their individual predilections. That is why students cannot be permitted to privately make their own decisions about what we are continually reminded are private decisions.

When it comes to matters of traditional religious belief, the secularists believe that children should not be exposed to theology until they reach maturity. However, when it comes to conjugal relations, indoctrination is suppose to commence nearly the first day of kindergarten.

In June 2009, a California school district approved a mandatory homosexual appreciation curriculum. As part of the curriculum, five year olds will study a book titled “And Tango Makes Three” about two “gay” penguins that hatch an egg together. They name the chick “Tango” because “...it takes two to make a Tango.”

This propaganda will cause mental damage that will take years to undue if it can be done so at all. Likely contrary to the mantra of the illustrated tractate, these were not the two that made Tango.

Like it or not, a male and a female penguin had to copulate together in order for little Tango to be brought into existence. All the two penguins in the story can do is raise him.

Do four and five year olds really need to be exposed to the intricacies of human relationships and reproduction? Most can barely tie their own shoes.

The lessons learned about the biological impossibility of a child having two parents of the same sex and what ought to be a legal impossibility as well since two unmarried people shackedup should not be permitted to simultaneously adopt the same child will not stop in kindergarten. They will be expanded upon from year to year as the student progresses through the statist school system.

In the first grade, according to WorldNetDaily, the book “Who Is A Family” will dupe students into believing that “in our school and our community there are many different kinds of families that provide love and care to each other. Remind the students that all family structures are equally important.”

Do these “equally valid family structures” include fundamentalist polygamist Mormons? Does this also include radical Islamist families where the fathers murder their daughters in so-called “honor killings” for exhibiting such proclivities towards harlotry such as wanting to pursue higher education and not wanting to wear burlap bags over their faces? After all, even if we find these practices abhorrent, it must be reminded they fall under the rubric of “all” family structures being equally valid.

Technically, a number of the social arrangements being promoted as such aren’t even families. But Western society has become so unhinged morally that only the most daring are publicly willing to enunciate these observations.

A family consists of a married man and women and any children that might result from their fecund union or any children such adults united together might adopt. If one is feeling especially innovative and cutting edge, one might be able to expand the definition to include the unmarried propagating offspring via fornication.

However, no matter how much we might want it to be so, the non-biologically related unmarried adult residing in the home with the actual parent is not part of the family. They might be the concubine or harlot of the adult residing in a particular domicile, but they can only be a friend or acquaintance of the child not all that different in terms of relationship than the next door neighbor.

Even if the laws are altered to let anyone live anyway they want with all the accompanying tax breaks and even welfare handouts to which they claim they are entitled, it will not be enough. The consciences of those living in manners contrary to both theology and biology are so pricked that they will not be content letting you simply put up with the iniquities they have wrought but also compel you to applaud and embrace these appalling decisions.

Fourth graders will be required to read an essay titled “My School Is Accepting -- But Things Could Be Better”. Along with this assignment, elementary students will be required to define “gay”, “lesbian”, and “LGBT”. By the way, to the pure of mind, that acronym is not a reference to a deli sandwich.

About all children need to know about human reproduction at that age is that babies somehow grow inside women’s stomachs. My grandfather didn’t know what the word “pregnant” meant until after he got married in his early 20’s and he came from a family of ten kids that lived on a farm. Things might not need to be that hushed over, but neither does everything need to hang out in the open classroom either.

As part of the curriculum, students will be extended the opportunity to learn of the warped affections of Elton John, Ellen Degeneres, Christina Aguilera, and Lance Bass. Are we going to also learn about the preferred bodily orifices of other historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson’s alleged bout of jungle fever?

In all likelihood, his name won’t even come up in class. Familiarity with the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and third president might fortify students against the efforts to deprive them of their liberty.

In their preparation for world conquest and hegemony, do Red Chinese pupils sit around discussing what celebrity likes what hole? Maybe if American students spent less time on these frivolities, educators would find the traditional 180 day school year sufficient and no longer need a reason to threaten an extended academic calendar.

It is claimed such acculturation (more accurately indoctrination) is necessary to prevent bullying. However, wouldn’t a generalized policy of don’t make fun of anyone at school without bogging down young minds with things that would make even grown adults blush and giggle in mixed company be enough?.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Though social engineers might try their hardest, human nature is pretty set within established parameters and as such these educators might end up stirring up the very animosities this ideological indoctrination is suppose to prevent.

Whether this contraindicated outcome is what is actually desired or not could be open to debate. The state benefits even more when the results are the opposite of peace and understanding as activists believe they are then justified in calling for additional restrictions on speech and thought.

Isaiah 5:20 warns, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" American society is swiftly approaching the point of no return when those that run our educational institutions would rather the nation's children be acquainted with the most shameful of deeds and desires rather than the noblest of truths that have inspired the highest of ideals of millennia

With China on the move around the world and the Towelheads constantly on the rampage, these scholastic sisses better pray boys keep drawing violent pictures if they want this great country to surive as the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

One cannot help but feel a sense of relief when these kinds of negotiations fall apart.

However, since Obama can't recuse himself from brown-nosing these backward Third Worlders, one has to ask how long until he goes crawling on his knees to deliver the concessions his internationalist masters demand.

And for that matter, is Congress also going to investigate young men having to pay higher insurance rates when even insurance agents today will admit the contemporary female is as every bit as scatterbrained as her male counterpart?

And even if they weren't, doesn't the emphasis on "egalitarianism" dictate in the name of fairness the same price irrespective of how the plumbing is hooked up?

Saturday, December 12, 2009

One of the shortcomings I remember the most about the Christian elementary school I attended was how a number of the less-than dedicated educators would punish all of the students for the misbehavior of a single pupil. To this day, I remain convinced this had more to do with lazy teachers preferring not to mess around with recess than correcting actually delinquency.

As miniature societies, the dynamics of schools often reflect the processes that govern nations and countries. Unfortunately, the good students --- or rather citizens in the macrocosmic case --- are having something that is by every right their's taken away just because those in charge don't want to deal with those out to ruin things for everyone.

For nearly 15 years (or at least since I've been writing about the topic annually), Christians and allied conservatives have waged a noble effort against secularists claiming the First Amendment, through an expansionist interpretation of the Separation Clause, forbids the erection of Nativity scenes and even less conspicuously devout Christmas symbols on public property.

Since Christmas has become a pivotal component of our culture, most Americans instinctively recoil at efforts to banish the beloved winter festival even if they are not particularly religious. Thus to be successful, secularists realized they would need to pursue a different strategy.

One of the foundational dictums (feigning a posture of sophistication, those of this mindset eschew the notion of creeds) of radical ecumenicalism is that, if you can’t beat them, join them. However, the ecumenicalist does not seek union or compromise with the more thoroughgoing traditionalist for the purposes of common ground but rather to eventually wear down the traditionalist to the point where the traditionalist capitulates to the original demands of the ecumenicalist.

For example, realizing that Americans aren’t willing to give up the public recognition of Christmas yet esteem the idea of fairness nearly as much, a number of wily atheists decided on a new strategy. These hostile unbelievers surmised, “Fine, we will allow you to have your religious display provided we are granted equal access to put up a display depicting our beliefs as well.”

Frankly, in some ways they had a point as it is often through verbal conflict one not only comes away better knowing what one’s opponent believes but what you believe as well. After all, Americans --- both devout and apostate alike --- are often complacent in regards to both theology and politics.

However, a critical populace of an analytical inclination is the last thing the government wants. And in the clamp down to prevent an outbreak of citizens thinking for themselves rather than handing the process of ratiocination over to leftist bureaucrats, even more radical academics and the media dupes of each, victory by default is handed over to the more malevolent brand of secularist.

It is pretty much the establishmentarian consensus that public displays commemorating America’s religious roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition cannot be directly set up by the government. Rather, in most instances, a public forum is established with a mad dash being made by adherents of the respective viewpoints to get permits to sponsor the annual display or to divvy up the space equally.

Thing of it is there is only a finite amount of space in most government buildings even if the power of the agencies housed therein often is not while the number of worldviews clamoring for public acclaim in an age of pluralism is nearly infinite. The rational American at their noblest wanting to see the greatest number possible satisfied and at their most base just wanting the incessant whiners to shut up would probably be willing to accept a Nativity with a snowman, a Menorah, and possibly even a flying spaghetti monster to please the acolytes of evolutionist Richard Dawkins though most would be rolling their eyes and mumbling under their breath about it.

In an age where every viewpoint is considered equally valid, who is to say more eccentric belief systems are not as worthy of exhibiting their own Yuletide emblems? For example, upon opening their display space to both the glory and Hades bound alike, the Washington State Capitol saw the erection of a Festivus pole, a fabricated holiday popularized by the minds behind Seinfeld, at least one of whom now thinks it is comical to urinate on artistic portrayals of Christ.

Where does it end? Since Star Wars has also weaved itself into the Christmas fabric of many that grew up during the 70’s and 80’s (just recall the fan film “Christmas Tauntauns” as well as the Star Wars Christmas special Lucas is claimed to have seldom acknowledged the existence of with its Wookie Life Festival), are we going to allow a display to this as well?

In the name of getting a handle on this, the Washington State Capitol has banned all holiday displays from the building. Leesburg, Virginia tried to pursue a similar policy, but rescinded the edict after citizen outcry against the abrupt ending of a tradition that extended back decades.

Of those of the mind that we must downplay the acknowledgement of certain statutorily recognized holidays because certain elements of the population finds them disturbing, does that mean we also eschew all other civic commemorations because a scant few find these others distasteful as well? For example, should Martin Luther King Jr. festivities transpiring on or near public property be cancelled since there a few that know this figure was hardly the godlike personage he is portrayed to be in the popular memory but rather someone with questionable Community ties and faulty theological assumptions no matter how laudable certain aspects of his philosophy might have been.

More importantly, what about Black History or other assorted ethnic supremacy months? One reason no one is suppose to mention Christmas since to do so is to be "divisive" because it is not a celebration that everyone embraces.

So because around three percent have an attitude problem, the rest of us are suppose to sit around with out lips sealed shut. Few would admit it for fear of losing their jobs or having rocks hurled through automobile windshields as I can assure you does occur when one enunciates positions on these kinds of subjects other than the one insisted upon by the diversitymongers. However, there are definitely more than three percent of the Caucasian population that, if you could assure them that there would be no repercussions, would admit to opposing these fill-in-the-flavor-of-the-month history months.

As Ann Coulter, I believe it was, once remarked the United States is not a bus stop. All should be free from violence and deliberate mistreatment even if their ideas fall outside the norm. However, as a nation, Americans should not have to cower in shame before a few disgruntled malcontents whose rights have otherwise been upheld and protected.

We all sin, but why should we heed the call to righteousness by someone that doesn't even feel shame for their flagrant shortcomings but rather wallows in them with pride.

But then again, about the only things still labelled sins these days is insisting that sin exists, failure to become a mindless drone of the COMMUNITY, and for thinking America as envisioned by the Founding Fathers is not the source of all the worlds troubles but rather one of the few places where most of these ills are kept reasonably at bay.

If Beck is to be condemned for castigating worthless paper currency while being sponsored by a gold investor, shouldn't Al Gore's environmental fearmongering be called into question since he rakes in millions through investments in alleged "clean technology"

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Will there be a Christmas wreath this large placed on the front of the White House?

If I was a bookie, I'd start a betting pool as to whether or not Obama will be able to say the name Jesus at the tree lighting ceremony.

More importantly, will there be other decorations in honor of diseases that actually claim more victims but whose sufferers are less likely to throw hissy fits if the world does not stand around and applaud how they came down with the affliction?

Monday, November 16, 2009

Early in American history, one was pretty much free to do as one saw fit on one's property so long as it was moral especially if one lived in a rural area where one's actions were not likely to encroach upon the sensibilities of one's neighbors. However, now it seems the landholdings of the United States in general and private property in specific are for everyone else to decide what to do with except the one to which it is titled.

As of September 1, 2009, the Virginia Department of Game and Fisheries has announced that it is illegal to artificially feed the deer through the first Saturday in January. This regulation is part of a program to keep the number of deer in check.

In other words, it is hoped that a number of them will starve to death during the winter months. If pristine, untouched nature is to be the standard by which our actions and decisions are to be judged, then shouldn't we speak plainly as to the policy's goals and intentions?

While the government has every right to set policy as to what it wants done on public lands and in state parks, private property holders should be able to do in regards to this issue on their own lots and in their own yards what they themselves believe best. Not everyone is going to feed the deer to begin with.

It should be noted that this bureaucratic mandate will go beyond regulating one single activity. According to a story posted at Harrisonburg Daily News Record titled "Deer Feeding Now Illegal", those with deer eating the seed spilled from birdfeeders will be ordered to temporarily take their feeders down.

Seems unwanted deer aren't the only extraneous animals authorities hope will die off and I am not talking about the birds. Obama's healthcare plan hopes that the aged demographic will simply throw in the towel with little resistance so that resources might be directed towards preferred groups such as illegal aliens.

Seems other public policy proposals may be furthering this agenda in a roundabout way. For you see, feeding the birds is often the highlight of the day of an elderly person who might not have anything else to look forward to in terms of entertainment now that television has pretty much been taken away from them unless they have a PH.D in electronics now that one has to have a digital converter box.

And speaking of illegal aliens and the like, it baffles the mind how environmentalists (who are usually some variety of liberal) that view human beings as being no better than animals and often of lower regard when it comes to the unborn as you can hack apart all the fetus you want so long as you don't smash open a bald eagle's egg or even touch a discarded feather for all that matter, fail to grasp a number of lessons that transcend the species barrier.

In an interview regarding the rational behind the prohibition, a wildlife official pointed out that once the deer get use to finding food in a certain place, they can become disgruntled and testy if nutritional allotments are discontinued. In other words, these ungulates loose their sense of self-sufficiency and develop an entitlement mentality.

Does any of this somehow seem familiar? During the speakership of Newt Gingrich, the Republican Congress thought they would get a handle on spending not really by cutting back certain programs such as school lunches but rather by slowing the rate of increase.

From the response to the policy at the time, one would have thought conservatives were smashing babies’ heads against concrete buildings, something a number of Obama’s closest advisors might not have all that much problem with. Likewise, one of the reasons elected officials are reluctant to do away with or eliminate many assorted handouts are the massive riots that would erupt across the country if the chronically dependent were suddenly expected to provide for themselves. Thus, one of the greatest bribes or ransom schemes in human history is basically continued for now to forestall what will one day result in history’s greatest bloodshed.

The issue of deer also provides an excellent study into other aspects of the immigration debate as well. The article says, “An overabundance of deer can lead...to increased human-deer conflicts, including vehicle collisions and disease transmission such as tuberculosis and other deer ailments.”

Illegal aliens and immigrants of dubious loyalties cannot be dealt with in the same manner as deer as one has a soul made in the image of God. However, the results are quite similar when the ratio of native born to foreign born becomes imbalanced in a similar manner.

Increased conflicts do result. Just ask Americans that have had their homes violated on the West coast.

I recall reading of incidents in California where Black families have come home only to find that illegals have moved in and staked a claim to a dwelling while the legitimate residents were out for the day. It is not uncommon for Arizonans to be awakened in the middle of the night to the sound of migrants rummaging through their refrigerators.

Secondly, though few want to talk about it since, in the eyes of the hypertolerant, being accused of racism is a fate worse than one's lungs filling with blood and festering puss, deer aren't the only ones spreading tuberculosis these days. Thanks primarily to deviants with compromised immune systems and diseased foreigners bringing in any number of previously conquered or even unknown diseases, America now faces an assortment of drug resistant pestilences.

Environmentalists are fond of pointing out that ecosystems are delicate things to balance. What they fail to realize is that one of the greatest threats to such harmony is government control.

The White House has announced plans to expand its Office of Faith-Based Initiatives. In an address to the National Prayer Breakfast, President Barack Obama said the office would reach out to nonprofit organizations and "help them determine how to make a bigger impact...and learn their obligations under the law." From a number of things said in the speech and that have transpired in relation to the economic bailout, those who cherish both religious liberty and sound theology should be deeply concerned.

Under the Bush Administration, those not wanting to pollute the purity of their doctrine by accepting government funds were pretty much free to say "No thank you". However, under the Obama regime, will reluctant religious organizations be permitted to back out amicably? Don't be so sure.

In regards to the bailout of the nation's floundering financial institutions, it has been insinuated that Wells Fargo did not want the government's handout but had its arm twisted by Lurch Jr, Hank Paulson into accepting the funds. For in the glorious opening days of socialism, no organization or individual can be seen as better or sounder than any other without at least some kind of penalty being inflicted.

If an administration at one time as dedicated as that of George W. Bush to liberty and free market principles can begin to nationalize the economy on the turn of a dime, then how much quicker will an administration already dedicated to socialistic principles such as experts being able to order your life better than you jump at the opportunity to manage the minutest aspect of our lives.?

For example, if financial institutions can be forced to accept bailout money whether they want to or not, what is to prevent this White House office from exerting pressure on small churches and organizations not having the resources to resist such coercion? And once these religious organizations have buckled under to the demands as in the case of financial institutions accepting assistance, what is to prevent snobs in the Obama administration from dictating what policy preferences and doctrines these institutions will then be permitted to enunciate?

Those not accustomed to exercising spiritual discernment wonder with befuddlement about what’s the big deal with granting the government a more direct role in influencing doctrinal content. After all, activists from both sides of the spectrum hope to influence the values embodied by the state.

That is correct, but that is the church or other institutions existing apart from the government playing their role in the political process rather than the state imposing its values on the other associations of private individuals. For when this is done in areas other than those delineated constitutionally in a free republic, one begins to step onto dangerous ground since the state is the only one of these that can use force and confiscate property in the process to ensure that its purposes prevail.

For example, at the national prayer breakfast, President Obama remarked, "And today,...it strikes me that this is one of the rare occasions that still brings the world together in a moment of peace and goodwill.” It is this spirit of peace and goodwill, one might argue, that President Obama hopes to promote and expand through the Office of Faith and Neighborhood partnerships.

However, the President’s remarks are rife with contradictions as well as other assumptions in the background regarding his worldview that will spell the ruination of religious liberty if his ideas are allowed to come to fruition. For example, Obama insists in his remarks, “There is no God who condones the taking of innocent human life.”

On the surface that is correct. However, that seemingly simple utterance requires the discerning to dig much deeper.

By making this statement and claiming to be a religious man, Obama has proven himself to either be a liar or deceived. For example, recounting her testimony before the Illinois state legislature, Jill Stanek recalled how uncaring Obama seemed regarding a baby surviving an abortion but who was tossed aside like the contents of a used bedpan. So either Obama must confess his complicity in the murder of the innocent, admit he really doesn’t give a flip about the laws of God, or that the God he serves really does condone the taking of innocent human life.

As a master deceiver, one must parse and analyze every word flowing from Obama’s lips at the decibel level of Loud Howard from the Dilbert animated series. For while trying to placate somulent Americam Christians, he also extends verbal overtures to the nation’s terrorist enemies.

One will note Obama declared, “There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.” Ladies and gentleman, you believe that as an American going about your daily business that you have done nothing against homicidal Muslims like those blowing up the World Trade Center. However, in the eyes of terrorists, as an infidel, you are far from innocent and thus a perfectly legitimate deliberate target.

Even fellow Americans of a radical inclination such as Ward Churchill (a likely Obama voter) likened those working at the World Trade Center unto Adolf Eichman. Obama’s mentor Bill Ayers primary regret was not having planted more bombs as a member of the Weather Underground.

In the coming months and years ahead, don’t expect President Obama to call upon the Islamofascists of the world to moderate their beliefs and to embrace those aspects of contemporary Western civilization superior to a medieval Levantine mindset. Rather the obligation to alter your beliefs will be imposed upon you, dear Biblicist.

In his first interview after assuming control of the federal government, Barack Obama did not grant an audience with a prominent American broadcaster such as Barbara Walters, Larry King, or Sean Hannity. Instead, he went crawling to an Arab propaganda outfit probably infiltrated by Al Qaeda sleeper agents.

Yet in a move reminiscent of those duped into advocating the unilateral disarmament position of the nuclear freeze movement, of Americans, Obama expects, “I don’t expect divisions to disappear overnight...But I do believe that if we can talk to one another openly and honestly, then perhaps old rifts will start to mend and new partnerships will begin to emerge. In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding.”

To Obama, destructive zealotry does not mean car bombs, forcing women to wear bags over their heads, or even holding “God Hates Fags” signs outside the funerals of Americans having fallen in battle. In the viewpoint of tolerance and open-mindedness of the new President, what constitutes acceptable religious activity is actually quite narrow.

For example, from the quote, Obama enunciates that he expects old rifts to mend and new partnerships to emerge. In other words, you are entitled to believe whatever you want so long as you don't believe that it is the only proper way to believe or dare share this perspective with anyone else.

For example, according to Obama, in response to criticism leveled against him by James Dobson of Focus on the Family, it is no longer appropriate for believers to take seriously Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality. Likewise, in an American ecclesiastical backdrop where the Obama Administration is pulling the strings either overtly or from behind the scenes, will Christians any longer be permitted to believe that Christ is the only means of salvation or to speak out on those areas where competing belief systems fall short of Christianity?

This is a valid concern because, in the mind of President Obama, the collectivist social democracies of the world are seen as superior to America's more individualistic republic. Yet in these regimes, the freedom to express one's conscience is shaky at best.

For example, in Scandinavia, Pastor Akkie Green ran afoul of the thought police for daring to exposit those passages of Scripture critical of homosexuality. In England, American talk radio personality Michael Savage was barred entrance for being critical of Islam even though Islamic militants are essentially granted permission to colonize the land of the Magna Carta, parliamentary democracy, and some of the world's most imaginative literature.

Things are little better with our neighbor to the north. For example, a ministry in Canada lost its equivalent of our tax exempt status for daring to point out where Jehovah's Witnesses and other theologically aberrant groups differ from establishmentarian Christianity. Mark Steyan and McClean's magazine faced the possibility of being dragged before a Human Rights Tribunal (basically a Stalinesque kangaroo court) for "vilifying” Islam by pointing out what terrorists have themselves publicly stated.

There is just so much those holding different religious beliefs can do together before mutual affirmations veer across the line into outright apostasy. For example, one can have a Muslim doctor or Jewish accountant and even be friends with these individuals. However, one is dangerously close to making the state itself God when profound theological differences are set aside in favor of so-called “new partnerships” called for by leaders out to deceive all of mankind irrespective of belief or creed.

It should be remembered that the American people are the ones playing for all this "flair".

Why do I get the impression I am going to soon be as sick of hearing that word as I am now of "diversity", "tolerance", "COMMUNITY", and "dazzle" (the last one is innoucuous enough, but if your job was on the line because of it, it make you nausceous also).

Things must be going bad again once again in the Mohler household as Albert as usual is flying into one of his early marriage tirades and must want everyone to be as miserable as he is.

I find it interesting how he will blame young men for being immature yet never will blame the young women these days for being a bunch of floozies.

For unless these young men are either sodomites or the young women rape victims, the girls are just as guilty of playing house without benefit of matrimony as the cads he condemns.

Why should any young person of either gender that has behaved themselves have to settle for someone that hasn't?

Hopefully, Al won't have to spend too many nights on the sofa.

Some like Mohler want it both ways: if a person doesn't get married they get chewed out, but then if they fall for a Catholic, a Holy Roller, or a McLarenite because hardly anyone in the sound churches anymore is under 65 years of age, they'll get chewed out over that.

Maybe it is about time so long as a particular young person pretty much keeps their pants on that people start minding their own business.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Thursday, October 29, 2009

The early 21st century stands as a period of profound moral confusion. On the one hand, mothers and doctors are permitted to crack upon the skulls and suck out the brains of nearly-born babies with government sanction under the banner of partial birth abortion. Should these very same people hike into the woods and crack open a bald eagle egg, they could face serious prison time.

It would therefore seem that contemporary society is marked by two seemingly contradictory extremes --- that of extreme license and that of excessive control. However, upon closer inspection it could be concluded that these conditions are not as contradictory as the situation might originally appear. Rather, it would seem each is the result of the systematic removal of the ethical balance provided within the Judeo-Christian tradition with its emphasis upon transcendent standards provided by an infinitely just and loving God.

With the increasing complexity of knowledge and technology, those trained in the acquisition and use of this complex body of thought (those broadly referred to as “intellectuals”) have taken on increased levels of influence and responsibility throughout society. No longer does agriculture or manufacturing dominate society to the degree it once did.

Futurists from Alvin Toffler to Newt Gingrich have characterized the current sociological epoch as information-based, with those manipulating this information from government bureaucrats to Hollywood producers exercising unfathomable power over the composition of the contemporary mind. Therefore, it must be remembered, as Lord Acton is believed to have said, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Through a historical process too complicated to detail to a significant degree in this brief analysis, the prevailing secular elite came to see the world around them and their own assorted intellectual systems as satisfactory explanations in and of themselves for the reality in which these thinkers found themselves. According to Phillip Johnson in “Reason In The Balance”, this way of viewing the world prevalent among the most influential intellectuals is naturalism. Naturalism is the idea that the material reality constitutes the totality of existence and the idea of God is merely a mental construct promulgated in an attempt to cope with the stark realities of the universe in which man finds himself (7).

The average person might naturally conclude that naturalism by its nature would confine itself to the issues of blunt observable scientific fact. However, naturalism has left the tedium of the laboratory and now seeks to influence fields as divergent from science as education, ethics, and government. It is through this set of paradigms embracing the present material reality as the highest criteria of judgment that the twin siblings of chaos and tyranny have become so prevalent throughout world society.

No matter what the secular elites call their particular systems or what concerns these systems emphasize, it is the goal of the secular elite to remake man in the image of the prevailing secular elite. According to Alister McGrath in “Intellectuals Don’t Need God & Other Modern Myths”, prominent ideologies competing for the minds of men include Enlightenment rationalism, Marxism, and scientific materialism (160).

Despite the shades of difference between each of these systems, at their core each shares the assumption that man is bound by no eternal standard beyond this reality and can be remade into whatever the powers that be see fit. It is from this effort to remake the fundamental nature of man that the sorrow of anarchy and tyranny flow.

Bound by certain God-ordained limits regarding behavioral standards and human relationships, man can expect nothing but heartache should he decide to ignore these warnings. However, those seeking to craft a cultural ethos standing apart from the moral will of God regularly ignore these moral stoplights like newly-licensed teenagers barreling down the Las Vegas strip.

Proponents of modernism originally hypothesized that man could retain a high degree of morality without reference to all that theological superstition. Yet without a clear theological reference by which to measure, the actions of man degenerate into the depths of unfathomable evil.

According to Norman Geisler in “Introduction To Philosophy: A Christian Perspective”, when man looks to himself as the source of right and wrong, the result is existential subjectivism and relativism where each person becomes a law unto themselves (404).

And while modernism attempted to maintain the illusion of objective standards apart from the revelation of God, the logical conclusion of such atheistic thinking --- postmodernism --- holds to no such delusions. In fact, political radical and literary critic Michel Foulcalt has stated there are no facts (though this assertion is itself stated as a fact) and his fellow travelers down the deconstructionist superhighway literally fancy themselves as “assassins of objectivity” according to Lynne Cheney in “Telling The Truth: Why Our Culture & Country Have Stopped Making Sense & What We Can Do About It” (91).

Such sentiments possess ramifications beyond settling the issue of whether or not hemlines will be low or high for the coming year. Such ideas determine the very shape and composition of human society and relationships.

This is particularly evident on college campuses where these kinds of ideas enjoy free reign having the status of orthodoxy and where no one bats an eye with anarchy and tyranny walking together hand in hand. For example, Dinesh D’Souza points out in “Illiberal Education : The Politics Of Race & Sex On Campus” that many college campuses distribute condoms and support the vilest profanity as art yet advocate a radical form of feminism just about branding traditional forms of sex as rape and enforce speech codes so broad as to punish “misdirected laughter” and “exclusion from conversation” (238).

Furthermore, much of twentieth and twenty-first history has been a running commentary on the chaos and tyranny that result from attempting to undermine the insoluble union between morality and divinity. The former Soviet Union perhaps stands as the primary example of this kind of experiment where in an attempt to better himself man turns his back on God and reaps the consequences in abundance. That particular society experienced bloodshed and misery rarely repeated in human history except perhaps in its sister dictatorships of Nazi Germany and Maoist China.

Without an objective standard as provided by the moral revelation of God, the state as embodied by the Communist Party was free to do as it pleased such as changing the law at the drop of a hat and then violate the law when it suited without any degree of institutional recourse available to the Soviet people. In his monumental Understanding The Times, David Noebel quotes a Communist functionary who said, "There is no God, no hereafter, no punishment for evil. We can do as we wish. I thank God, in whom I don't believe, that I have lived to this hour when I can express all of this evil in my heart (104). Few Evangelical thinkers have been able to express the moral dangers of atheism in a more succinct manner.

Standing in marked opposition to atheism and its law of the jungle and inherent antinomianism is belief in God and the corollaries of morality flowing from God's existence. From the heartaches and confusion mentioned previously in this exposition, it is evident that mankind is incapable of establishing a satisfactory moral system of his own accord.

Instead, man must be provided one by an objective outside source yet one familiar with the conditions under which man is capable of thriving. Furthermore, it is only through God as revealed in Scripture that one is even justified in speaking of morality in the first place.

Try as he might, C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Christianity", man cannot escape the encompassing embrace or rebuke of morality. For even in the attempt to flee from its more traditional formulations, one must invoke the structure of its dialogue in order to appeal to a competing set of standards (3).

For example, D. James Kennedy points out in "Character & Destiny: A Nation In Search Of Its Soul" that tolerance is the last virtue of an immoral society since this moral principle in invoked to cover over a plethora of popular abominations ranging from pornography to abortion to sodomy (78). The issue is not so much that man will live without some degree of morality, but rather by whose standards will man live and the consequences resulting from such decisions.

Westminster Seminary Professor John Frame elaborates in "Apologetics To The Glory Of God" that, in order to exist as objective standards beyond the level of subjective sentiments, morals must stem from an absolute source; and since these principles govern personable entities, they must exude from an absolute ultimate personality (100). If morality exists in a transcendent source apart from man in God, morality is granted a degree of liberation from the murky fog of subjectivism yet is accessible to man and can be said to exist in all situations even if finite man refused to disentangle himself from the passion of the moment to view these conundrums from the crisp peaks of objective detachment.

Since these divinely legislated standards stem from God, they exist as part of the underlying fabric of the universe. Try as he might, man cannot escape the lure of morality, such a situation further attesting to the power of the God standing behind these principles. Romans 2:14-15 says, "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts...(NIV)."

Even those who actively choose to suppress and undermine this universal order appeal to it when it suits their interests. C.S. Lewis writes in "Mere Christianity", "Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining before he can say Jack Robinson (5)." Norman Geisler illustrates this point in "Christian Ethics" in the story of a student professing antinomianism who appealed to objective standards upon receiving a failing grade from this ethics instructor regarding a trivial matter (384).

At this point, readers not normally enchanted by the banter of academic dialogue may concede that morality does indeed flow from God but may wonder what practical impact such a truth may have in everyday existence. Actually, quite a bit.

Since God is both the legislator of traditional morality and the loving creator of man, it follows that the traditional moral system established by God and set forth in the revelation of the Holy Bible is the system of morality best suited to the nature of humanity, both protecting him to the greatest possible degree from the rampant evil plaguing a fallen world and allowing him to enjoy whatever goodness that remains in it through the grace of God.

For example, God did not establish the rules surrounding marriage in order to toss a wet blanket over the fornication follies. Rather, confining the act of human intimacy within the context of marriage balances both the desire for physical pleasure and the need for lasting love, to say nothing of protecting the individual against the proto-apocalyptic pestilences now ravaging millions. Instead of withering away like a forgotten memory as predicted by some, Tim LaHaye hypothesizes in "The Battle For The Family" that the family will in reality provide a foundation of stability in times of unprecedented social turmoil (237).

The moral argument for God is far more than a dry academic proof found in seminary textbooks. Its reality is being made more concrete each day throughout the culture as the nation continues to drift away from its Judeo-Christian foundations.

In "Turning The Tide: The Fall Of Liberalism & The Rise Of Common Sense", Pat Robertson describes the two possible futures that await the United States (293-296). Americans can either repent of their wickedness and return to God and His standards, experiencing national renewal, individual well-being, and eternal salvation in the process. Or, the American people can continue in their sin and deny God's very existence, risking national decline, personal suffering, and eternal damnation as a result. The choice is up to you, with your eternal destiny and the welfare of your family hanging in the balance.

This might get me branded as a flaming liberal by some, but unless a publication contains blatant smut, there is no excuse to burn books.

Even if translations such as the NIV or New Living Translations are deficient, that is still no excuse to burn them as many of these still possess the power of God unto salvation.

And even if Billy Graham and Rick Warren are deficient theologically, shouldn't we study their works to learn for ourselves where these thinks have gone astray rather than blindly accept the word of someone that destroys the evidence before we have the chance to judge for ourselves?

Unless one's faith is anchored in the Savior rather than the church, this outrage is almost enough to make one to want to leave Christianity.

Monday, October 19, 2009

A number of Hispanosupremacit activists contend this costume will hurt their friends that are illegals.

Would they prefer the costume consist of a sombrero, a beer bottle, and a book of Foodstamps?

Frankly, since illegals don't belong here, rather than worry how this costume hurts illegals, maybe we should worry how illegals are hurting the United States.

I remember one time it being said "undocumenteds" should not be refered to as "aliens" because these human migrants are from the planet earth and should not be referred to "illegal" either because "no human being is illegal".

Yet I bet all this posturing never stopped them from calling the White folks naive enough to fall for all this nonsense as stupid gringos.

Now it seems we can't even refer to aliens as aliens.

Mark my words eventually you won't even be able to refer to "extraterrestrials" as "extraterrestrials" since that will be a "thought crime against galactic unity".

If retailers such as Target cave to this pressure and remove the costume from sale, conservatives of all stripes and hues should rally to have Kwanza items banned as well.

That might be the celebration of an ethnic group not even a party to this dispute, but those participating in that celebration are part of the same mindset out to destroy America.

From how the media is painting the story, one would assume that Balloon Boy's father Richard Heene's MySpace page was rife with references to extraterrestrials.

From what I've been able to deduce, there is only a single reference to life from outerspace in the "Who He'd Like To Meet Section". But then again, I guess any answer other than Obama these days is incorrect.

Authorities need to keep their charges related to the hoax pulled off and not centered around what Heene believes.

For does not our own government spend millions of dollars searching for extraterrestrial life and, even more shockingly, how to manipulate the people of America and the world into embracing it should such entities ever be discovered?

When the power of the state is used to investigate the unorthrodox beliefs of those committing questionable actions, it is about to take the plunge off of a very steep cliff very few are prepared to deal with.

For in the final analysis, one could make the case that Christian parents dragging their children off to some Third World mission field are a greater danger to the physical well-being of their offspring than someone that thinks that there maybe life beyond the earth.

There are some inner parts of the soul that no one wants the state looking at.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

According to a number of ministers such as the one speaking above, Christians should not participate in Trick-Or-Treat since to do so would be to engage in witchcraft.

If one wants to take things to that degree, then are we to take it to the next logical conclusion and say that anyone participating in these festivities should receive capital punishment since that is the Scriptural end of those found guilty of such abominable allegations?

As apologist Gretchen Passantino has quipped, trick-or-treating no more makes you a witch or a Satanist than accepting a Christian present makes you a Christian.

Monday, October 12, 2009

Travelers often grumble about security measures at airports requiring them to remove belts and shoes as precautions to detect explosives. Such inconveniences may seem like something from the quaint past in light of a new strategy developed by Al Qaeda. An attack was carried out against the Saudi head of counterterrorism operations by concealing nearly a pound of explosives inside a bomber's rectum. The device was detonated by cell phone. It is believed instructions on how to carry out such an attack will soon be posted online.

Representative Joe Wilson was right after all. Obama is a liar. The healthcare legislation being considered in Congress will not require immigrants to produce legitimate photo identification to qualify for benefits. But I bet you, American citizens will have to lay bare all their documents (including birth certificates like those Il Duce refuses to show anyone) to qualify for even the most basic of medical care.

The stage at U2’s Washington concert cost nearly $40 million. By what right has Bono then to lecture the rest of us about poverty and Westerners having too much? During the concert, the Irish crooner declared that his quartet had transcended band status and are more akin to a global force like a nation states. Apparently he’s every bit the arrogant piece of human dreck South Park made him out to be.

Hollywood and secular elites around the world have endorsed child molestation. The likes of Whoopi Goldberg, Woody Allen, and the French government have gone on the record that Roman Polanski should be set free since his drugging of a thirteen year old girl and the carnal knowledge he gained of her while in such a state was so long ago and really wasn’t rape anyway. One wonders if they’ll go as easy on Catholic priests accused of such things often on the grounds of nothing more than the word of the alleged victim.

Don’t expect children to be better protected under the Obama Administration. The Presidents special advisor on school safety is alleged to have done nothing other than advise the youngster to use a condemn when a fifteen confided in the then-teacher that he was having an affair with an older man.

Scripture informs the reader that in God’s eyes there is neither Greek nor Jew. Apparently those at Oxon Hill Baptist Church failed to heed this passage. According to the October 2009 edition of the Maryland Baptist Convention's Baptist Life newsletter, a Filipino open house was held for new Prince George’s county teachers of that particular extraction where they were provided with warm clothing, linens, and kitchen items. Perhaps members of less-than favored ethnicities should consider withholding their tithes until all educators are appreciated for their minds rather than their skin colors.

Gingrich now shills for Hispanosupremacits through TheAmericano.com. Would so-called "conservatives" put up with a website extolling how much "Germanic Heritage" has contributed to the United States? Another article titled “Language Is Not A Family Value” on the site downplayed English as an indispensable component of the American identity.

President Obama is threatening to lengthen the school day and year. Maybe if time wasn't wasted on propaganda orations and singing hymns to Il Duce's august name, teachers would have sufficient time to teach actual subjects. This plan to extend both the school year and day is no doubt to pay back one of Obama's core constituencies that can't get enough of the motions necessary to have a child but don't want any of the responsibilities that follow afterwards.

Monday, October 05, 2009

Those who have bent their knee in homage to our nation's magnanimous liege will no doubt one day denounce me in a People’s Court (not the TV show but rather a Soviet-style show trial) for daring to nitpick the Chosen One to this extent. However, it is their beloved leader, ladies and gentleman, that insists that the COMMUNITY play a prominent role in your every life decision.

In a campaign speech, Barack Obama lamented that, during the Dark Ages before his ascent to the throne, Americans were able to drive around in SUV’s, eat what they wanted, and kept their homes climate controlled at 70 degrees. Liberals, Communitarians, and other related socialist types who think that only those agreeing with them should be permitted to open our mouths will shriek, “You’ve already made this point in previous commentaries.” And I am going to keep making it whenever Comrade Obama violates these key tenets of leftwing dietary policy.

On 5/6/09, President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden motorcaded to an eatery in Northern Virginia where our wondrous benefactor and one of his foremost disciples supped upon the finest of ground bullock for their midday meal. When average Americans engage in these kinds of activities, few give it second thought and pretty much the same response would be elicited if other occupants of the Oval Office such as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush engaged in this gastronomic act. However, seldom did these Chief Executives blatantly declare their enmity to the minutest details of the American way of life and vowed to remake the nation along new lines.

For starters, while you are suppose to sit glum-faced and ashamed that Americans enjoy a standard of living above that of a Third World slum, Obama can fire up the limo, which with its protective reinforced armor no doubt makes it as much of a gas guzzler as and SUV, as well as the Secret Service vehicles that need to accompany the President. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper to send someone to get the burgers?

Better yet, doesn’t the White House have its own gourmet kitchen capable of feeding nearly 150 people? Catered now to by two chefs, his Highness is of such sophisticated tastes that he had to bring his own personal chef with him from Chicago (which also raises the question that, if Michelle is not the one preparing the family meals, is she really the ideal wife and mother propagandists have made her out to be).

If these chefs are supposed to be able to prepare the most succulent of culinary delights, shouldn’t they be able to replicate any rotgut swill the President might develop a hankering for? Which brings up another glaring hypocrisy.

Obama’s kitchen scullion was not granted his commission because of his acumen around a saucepan. Rather, he also spouts the Communitarian line that the individual is not bright enough to figure out on their own the “socially responsible” thing to eat.

Thus, to Obama, eating is not a personal activity. Instead, it is one where the COMMUNITY ought to have considerable say in determining what you get to ingest.

But perhaps just as disturbing and even more dangerous than a President thinking he is exempt from the expectations he mandates for the remainder of us is the response the brainwashed dupes express in regards to this man. Some happening to be in the eatery observed that Obama stood in line just like everybody else.

Being impressed by this reveals the extent to which America has declined. For in a democratic republic, where no one is suppose to be perceived as better than anyone else in terms of ontology, a President waiting in line should raise no more eyebrows and be lavished with no more accolades than the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker required to wait their turn in line like any other person.

In itself, there is nothing wrong with enjoying a hamburger. However, if the one enjoying the hamburger is the very same person intending to use his very considerable influence to prevent you from enjoying the same simple pleasure, the act of mastication goes from being one of little consequence to one of considerable public importance.

To what extent does a school's authority extend beyond the school yard?

A Saratoga Springs, NY seventh grader may help formalize these boundaries.

According to TimesUnion.com, a state trooper interdicted the lad at Maple Avenue Middle school, informing that biking and even walking to school were against the rules.

A school might discourage biking to school by refusing to provide accommodations such as storage facilities and might even prevent pupils from perambulating away from the premises in the evening unaccompanied by an adult.

But on what legal ground can they decree by which mode of locomotion students arrive for instruction unless there is a formalized legislative statute banning those of a certain age from utilizing public sidewalks irrespective of destination?

Perhaps the greatest issue of concern here is law enforcement being summoned to enforce the policy whim of bureaucrats in jurisdictions beyond their stipulated purview.

For if this is not stopped now, what is to prevent educators by threatening through the barrel of the gun upon which police decisions ultimately rely from deciding what else goes on while your children are in your own care such as what they eat, what they watch on TV, and even what you as a parent are permitted to believe in terms of politics and religion?

Sunday, September 27, 2009

Maybe if time wasn't wasted on propaganda orations and singing hymns to Il Duce's august name, teachers would have sufficient time to teach actual subjects.

This plan to extend both the school year and day is no doubt to pay back one of Obama's core constituencies that can't get enough of the motions necessary to have a child but don't want any of the responsibility that comes afterwards.

Friday, September 25, 2009

With the Obama agenda, the New Age mindset shares the perspective that you are not so much a distinct individual worthy as such but rather a mere component emanating outward into larger and larger groups. For example, at the lowest level you are part of the COMMUNITY.

Note that the family has been skipped over entirely as the prerogatives of the reactionary fecund union between a monogamous man and woman must be overridden by the preferences of the bureaucracy administering the larger group. At the highest level, all identity is subsumed into an absolutist holism. Obama prophesizes, “...the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself.”

Chesterton, or someone nearly as wise, once remarked that one shouldn’t take down a fence unless you know why it was put up. Ladies and gentlemen (especially ladies), if we are to live as one common humanity, do you really want a Pakistani tribesman with Taliban sympathies to have a say over how you live your life in terms of whether or not you can go outside without a bag over you head, be permitted to drive a car, or even have windows in your home not painted over so that you can look outside.

A world without distinctions was also a dream shared by Communists. And as has happened in all regimes that sought to obliterate all distinctions save those imposed by the all powerful state such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union or Red China, the attempt here will result in a wide-scale abridgement of basic human rights.

For example, throughout his inaugural address, Obama made the attempt to depict himself as no respecter of persons on the basis of race or ethnicity by denouncing segregation and the like as a “dark chapter” of our nation’s history. However, from an examination of the other rhetoric employed by the new President, like the pigs in Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, it is quite evident that Obama views some racial groups as being more equal than others.

For example, in his inaugural address, Obama dropped lines such as “from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born” and “why a man whose father less than 60 years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath”. From the sound of it, you’d come away from Obama’s speech thinking the President’s father was a very honorable man.

Obama’s father was anything but as he was little more than a drunken bigamist scoundrel hardly worthy of being immortalized as part of the annals of Inauguration rhetoric. Obama’s grandparents, who actually raised and provided for Barack even when his own mother abandoned him in favor of the wonders of Indonesian blacksmithing, were not even worthy of a single mention.

After carefully cogitating over the differences that might make an alcoholic bigamist morally superior to an elderly couple that would take in their grandson and raise him as their own, in the eyes of Obama it must be that his father happens to be a Black African whereas Obama’s maternal grandparents were just in their grandson’s own words “typical White people”. And just as Communists in the past set up a more stringent class system in their alleged attempt to eliminate this particular social distinction, in the name of racial equality Barack Obama will likely do everything in his power to expand minority set asides and favoritism.

This underlying contempt for White people was evident throughout the remainder of the inaugural oration. For example, following in the grand tradition of Democrats picking poets that barely make sense such as Maya Angelou at Bill Clinton’s, not to be outdone Obama also felt compelled to feature a poetess few had the bravery to admit publicly just how lousy she was. And in keeping with the theme of these shenanigans, Obama commissioned an ode in the spirit of his own brand of inanity.

Mixed between banalities such as “patching a tire” and a few worthy insights such as the centrality of words in the human processing of sensory experience, “Praise Song For The Day” was lit with a number of code words one can find without too much trouble if schooled in the kinds of imagery leftists peddle in as they foment revolution. For example, the poem reads “Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would keep clean and work inside of.”

Ladies and gentleman, those names of the dead to be sung are not those of the servicemen who died on behalf of the United States as it is not the nature of Obama’s malcontent colleagues to enunciate respectfully about our armed forces. The only uniforms they will speak favorably of are those of the civilian security forces that will no doubt over the course of the next few years be authorized to break into our homes to see if we are eating government proscribed meals, what our thermostats are set to, and what kinds of light bulbs we have screwed in. Rather, even though most Americans are publicly willing to treat those of other races cordially, such lines are designed to yet one more time rub America’s nose in the issue of slavery.

Some will claim that only the mentally and socially unstable would dare read between the lines and point something out like that. However, research points out that the woman that presented the poem is the one subverting American institutions and Obama should be embarrassed for having made her part of the inaugural festivities.

Frankly, Obama’s inaugural poet is such a literary pervert that in comparison Bill Clinton’s Oval Office trysts could be included as an addendum to the next edition of Bill Bennett’s “Book Of Virtues”. According to a Brent Bozell piece titled “No Poetry Controversy?”, Elizabeth Alexander exhibits a disturbing interested in mutilated geneatalia throughout her published work and postulates that Black athletes being paid millions of dollars per year are as mistreated as Rodney King (who probably wasn’t as mistreated by police as media would always have us believe) and even the innocent tragically lynched in decades past.

Those endorsing her lyrical undertakings will snap, “Dr. Alexander is a respected Yale professor”. If that is the case, this nation is even worse off if such mental swill is what parents are paying and arm and a leg for for their children to be intellectually poisoned in the name of education. I’ve known smarter and wiser high school dropouts than this.

Up until that point, most of the anti-American and anti-Anglo sentiment had been hidden in euphemism that the unsuspecting could not openly identify though manipulated by in terms of their perceptions nonetheless. By the end of this national folly, it was pretty clear the direction in which Obama hopes to take the country over the course of his presidency.

To close the ceremony, Rev. Joseph Lowery offered the following benediction: “Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask that you help us work for that day when blacks will not be asked to get in the back, when brown can stick around...when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen.”

Some might chuckle at this, as Obama no doubt did since on a number of occasions such as his “60 Minutes” interview and when Wanda Sykes longed for the death of Rush Limbaugh, displaying his inability to stifle jocularity when propriety would have him do so. However, there are dangerous misconceptions in that prayer if these sentiments uplifted to the Almighty are permitted to become the foundation of policy.

For starters, Blacks are no longer required to get in the back, and neither should they. Since these radicals have opened the door for the slingers of racial slights, if anything, Whites these days are the ones metaphorically being asked to get in the back of the bus in terms of Affirmative Action and related ethnic set asides.

For there is still no White History Month. From what I am able to gather, Whites are about the only ethnic group that does not have their own museum explicitly named after them on the Mall in Washington (and the Museum of American History does not count as the last time I was there about a decade ago displays depicting Hispanic culture enjoyed top billing with an exhibit of a sombrero-wearing, trumpet-blowing skeleton being prominent in my memory). Furthermore, an associate of mine who has a college degree and a considerable amount of work experience is unable to advance beyond an entry level position whereas blatantly incompetent Blacks are moved into higher levels of management whose only qualification happens to be that they are Black.

In the comment, “when brown can stick around”, what this apostate either playing at being a minister of God or one so mentally deficient as to have bought into the revolutionary swill eroding America’s foundations is calling for is blanket amnesty to all illegals. Maybe this preacher should have added a witty line about “the browns” obeying the law and coming here in compliance with duly constituted procedures and then only if they want their first earthly political loyalty to be the United States of America.

In another offensive line of the poem, Lowery expressed a longing for the day "when White will embrace what is right". Utilizing his previous lines as a guide as to how to interpret this one, one could conclude that he does not believe Whites have overall embraced what is right.

Oh really? Is he not allowed to stand before the country and be as much of a national embarrassment as he wants to be? How about a line how these groups should stop blaming Whitey when most of their problems these days stem from their own refusal to behave themselves?

But in perhaps the most disturbing line of the benediction, Lowery intoned, “That all those who do justice and love mercy say ‘amen’.” Such an imperative implied that, if one does justice and loves mercy, one must add one’s spiritual ascent to this inane babbling and, that if one does not, one approves of injustice and oppression.

Yet did not Obama in the very same address drone on with platitudes about tolerating other viewpoints? Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and non-believers.”

Not a single Muslim or Hindu had anything to do with the founding of this nation and George Washington remarked it was impossible to be a good American and not believe in God. One should not have to grant verbal consent to the warped multiculturalist conceptions of justice and mercy if one professes to cherish what these values originally meant.

In his few short months in office, Barack Obama has set more ruination of this country into motion than most presidents do over the course of their entire administrations. And unless Americans come to understand the kind of worldview enunciated by the President and his allies at the Inauguration, this nation stands little chance of remaining that shining city on a hill that at one time gave hope to oppressed people around the world.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Pluralists will yammer that this organization should have the liberty to invite anyone they want to address their convention. Quite true. However, I am not among these tolerancemongers who are picketing the Michigan Chamber of Commerce for daring to invite Glenn Beck. It must be remembered that, unlike those at 9/12 rallies and Tea Parties, leftists usually destroy property at their protests.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that, should government extend bailout funds to the nation's newspapers, the end result will be the state dictating media content.

For did not Obama determine the minutest aspects of GM and bank operations when these institutions fell for government wiles such as where conferences would be held and what models of automobiles would continue to roll off the assembly line.

This has to happen by definition.

The Newspaper Revitalization Act being considered by Congress would pemit papers to reorganize as Non-profit 501(C)(3) organizations.

This is the same part of the tax code that churches have fallen for granting them formalized tax-exempt status.

In exchange for this favor from Leviathan, churches are forbidden from participating in political activity such as the endorsing of candidates for office.

However, the power to tax is the power to destroy and even the most devout of pastors on fire for the Lord have grown circumspect in how they address issues of public concern from the pulpit as they dig for phraseology that honors God's revelation without plunging their congregations into financial ruination simply because some unrepentnant reprobate in the pew gets in a huff.

This will mean one of two things.

Either America's newspapers will become increasingly bland as they strive to avoid stepping on the taxman's toes or that there is an even more sinsiter thing going on in the form of a religious persecition that will overlook newspapers saying whatever they want but maintaining theological and ideological shackles around the churches of America.

So the moral of the story is, under almost no circumstances should a family seek social assistance. For once you accept one government dime, you become the property of the state for it to do with as it sees fit.